[FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive heuristics

[glen]

Hm. IDK. In a parallel universes world, generalists are higher order than specialists, operating over multiple worlds. So there seems to be a controversy about whether higher orders increase or decrease the degrees of freedom. If the existence of generalists increases the DoF, then you might want more generalists.

On 4/14/22 14:31, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I meant that a depth-first understanding of the world may be as informative and useful as a breadth-first understanding of the world.
> Specialists tend to be rewarded more than generalists, and with billions of people, generalists do sort of seem redundant.   Ideally one can compute a bound that says when digging can stop.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 1:55 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive heuristics
> 
> Kinda depends. The book Alien Information Theory argues that DMT literally takes you to a different universe (based on Wheeler's and others theories that the universe is fundamentally information and brought about by observation of quantum events). He suggests putting yourself on a DMT drip to you will remain in that alternate universe permanently. He makes the observation, "to your friends you will appear to be dead."
> 
> So that is one I would not do "completely" unless I was on my deathbed and had nothing to lose.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, at 12:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Everything once, but not once, completely?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 12:07 PM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive
>> heuristics
>>
>> My philosophy: ((everything) (once) then in moderation if it suits
>> you)  not sure of parentheses, been a long time since Algebra I
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, at 8:05 AM, glen wrote:
>>> I certainly hope I'm not winning you over, accidentally or otherwise.
>>> Your use of the word "fetish" is spot-on, in that such paraphilia is,
>>> ultimately, unhealthy
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias> ... I guess
>>> barring the "everything in moderation" principle [⛧].
>>>
>>> In fact, to be "won over" implies imprisonment, convicted to one's
>>> convictions. However, I also think it's unhealthy to, say, be so
>>> Luddite that you prefer "natural immunity" to vaccination ... or
>>> prefer your wood burning fireplace to natural gas heat ... or to
>>> demand to "talk to a person" rather than interacting with the phone
>>> tree. That hyper-traditionalism is *also* an unhealthy fetish and
>>> it's why, despite my conservatism, the neoreactionaries are so repulsive to me.
>>> As a conservative, I constantly find myself defending the Now against
>>> the fetishists of both the Yesterday and Tomorrow. Does that mean I
>>> have a Now fetish? Maybe. But it's more like a reaction to the
>>> non-Now fetishes around me.
>>>
>>>
>>> [⛧] The interpretation of "everything in moderation" depends on where
>>> you put the parentheses. (Everything) (in moderation) implies you
>>> *should* do just a little bit of everything ... a little sky diving ...
>>> a little body modification ... a little Christianity ... a little
>>> crack cocaine, etc. But (Everything in moderation) implies that
>>> whatever it is you choose to do should be in moderation.
>>>
>>> On 4/13/22 12:05, Steve Smith wrote:
>>>> I think you are (accidentally?) winning me over to the post/trans-humanist fetish.   Just your talk of "play" and realizing how much I *already* play with automatons in the form of (see driving anecdotes) other drivers and roadway systems and (smart or dumb) traffic-lights, etc and bureaucracies.   I admit to always being taken in by (modern) science fiction stories with robot/android - human relationships... playing what might amount to a continuous, infinite game of Turing Test with them.   The same kind of "play" I currently engage in with dogs, cats, horses, watercourses, etc.   As a good animist, I can't see how I could reject the opportunity to "Play" with machine intelligences!
>>>>
>>>> When I get a full-body prosthetic to make up for my slowly failing organic musculo-skeletal system, I will probably find great enjoyment in "playing" with it the way I currently "play" with my bicycle and other vehicles, testing (softly these days) their performance envelope and response modes.
>>>>
>>>> Jump cut to Ridley in her  Space-Mining-Waldo-Exoskeleton  with or without an Alien opponent.

-- 
Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙